Not really... I think we know quite a lot of 'what there is to know' already. Close to about 10%. It doesn't mean we can't invent something new from it. That is, if you don't count knowing how to use knowledge as knowledge...
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Nah, I didn't read your article, Muz. Everyone was bitching about the server so I didn't bother trying.
First of all... you make a big assumption by saying only something which is physically present can exist. To do so is to assume that our dimension is the only one in existence, like listening to the radio and insisting there's only one channel because it's the only one you can hear. THen someone comes along and says another channel interfered with his and he could hear two channels at once. You insist that he was hallucinating because that's not possible.
This is a flawed analogy. That's the problem with analogies. Unless you know what you're talking about before hand, they're fucking stupid.
Both radio stations exist as radiation, detectable with the help of an apparatus, in this case the radio. The radio is limited in that it's designed to play music from a certain band and nothing else. If someone told me they heard another station, and yet previous experience suggested there was only one, rational logic would dictate that there must be a second source of radiation. So I'd draw up a hypothesis and test it with a more flexible apparatus. If that failed, then I would attempt synthethis, that is setting up another station and attempting to replicate the effect. If that failed, and mathematical evidence suggested that it was impossible, then I might suggest that the subject is undergoing aural hullucinations.
However, there's a gi-fucking-normous difference between different modulations on one medium and throwing up crap about some "magic" thing for which there is no evidence. And don't think for a second that people haven't attempted experiments in the field.
Let's say we know 10 percent of what there is to know - I'm being generous, especially if you think we evolved entirely by trial and error.
Okay, first of all, evolution is entirely divorced from this issue. Whether we were dropped here fully-made or evolved gradually doesn't make a lick of difference to how much knowledge we've accumulated about physical science. That's biology. You fucking moron. It has nothing to do with any phenomenon of magic.
Secondly, Godel's Theorum makes it impossible to have a complete mathematical understanding of all processes in absolute detail.
Thirdly, physical theory doesn't attempt to accumulate knowledge, it merely exists to explain pysical events and interactions. Such as magic. As far as a Grand Unified Theory goes, which is something which would explain and to a degree predict the interactions of all particles, we're more like 95% there. If magic is capable of interacting with the physical world, we would be able to explain it. However, there is neither a place nor a demand in current theory for anything of the like.
If someone claimed to be a Holocost survivor and vididly described their experience, you could claim they hallucinated that, too. And you could point out how peculiar it is that only the Jews seem to remember this incident.
Another bloody stupid analogy. There's corroboratory evidence for the holcaust event. There were mass graves found. Paperwork. Execution facilities. There's testimonials from hundreds of survivors that agree on details implicitly.
In contrast, there was a of books in the 60s written by a handful of individuals who claimed to have been visited by jesus, who lives on Venus.
I'm sure you can pick that analogy apart, but what I'm saying is that just because you can find an excuse for why something happened, doesn't make it true. Passing something off as a "hallucination" is not the same as digging deeper and investigating what happened. It pushes you away from the truth, it does not bring you closer. Of course if you don't want to know the truth...
I repeat: there have been numerous studies in the area attempting to prove such things. None have succeeded. What, you don't think there are religous scientists? How about you go and do some research before you start spouting this crap.
And we know that things happen all the time which cannot be reproduced in a controlled environment; how about falling in love for example?
Testing in a controlled environment is merely a matter of designing a suitable experiment. Anything can be tested in a controlled situation. It's not a matter of locking something in a clean white room, it's a matter of taking account of all the variables.
As for love, it's been fully explained through neurochemical processes and the like. There's plenty of documentation. Look it up.
Any athiest will tell you that we invented things like God because we couldn't deal with reality. Well the truth is we idolized science because we couldn't deal with God.
Which god would that be, hmm?
this magic thing is somehow merging into the fantasy world of the bible, lemme jump into say that religion was something invented years and years ago to explain things that science just couldnt prove when we didnt have the technology... well now we do so my final point is here: religion is bullshit
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. An analogy isn't intended to prove or disprove anything, but to open one's mind to a different way of thinking. I made the mistake of thinking I was conversing with open minded people; my apologies. I won't be discussing this issue any further.
Edited by the Author.
Last time I had lobster, it reminded me of biology class. Except in biology class the professor didn't make you eat the frog when you were finished.
Everyone knows Jesus was the greatest magican ever. His tricks fooled tons of people. I mean, this whole 'christian' thing started ever since then! If I turn water into wine, maybe people will worship me!
Fine Garbage since 2003.
CURRENT PROJECT:
-Paying off a massive amount of debt in college loans.
-Working in television.
Muz, I haven't found a chance to read your thesis yet due to bandwidth issues, but I intend to as I am interested to see your perspective. First off, I'd like to point out how the religion bashing will do little other than to start trouble. A little respect for others would be greatly appreciated. Now back to the issue; If you look up the definition of Magic, or the greek magikos, it is a believed supernatural ability without explaination or description. To try and explain something that by definition is without explanation is a massive dichotomy making all of this a mute point. Just a thought.
Dines: I'm plenty open minded. I'm not claiming that unusual things don't happen from time to time (current quantum theory allows for an elephant to instantly materialize in front of you for no reason, it's just that the probability of it happening is miniscule), just that they are all explainable scientifically without resorting to "um... well... magic did it."
Bandwidth issues? Just right-click and Save As... oldest trick in the freeware community. It's only 11 KB (zipped as it is). Front page uses more bandwidth .
I simply used 'Magic' in the term it's normally used in game. If you want a definition (how I hate terms and definitions), it would be more of 'supernatural activity involving non-conventional conversions of energy' according to this little file. Or '5th-dimensional conversion of energy'.
Basically, it kinda explains how an elephant can instantly materialize (magic: summoning), or how someone could toss a fireball from his fingertips (magic: evocation), or how someone could read someone else's mind (magic: divination). I got tired of bringing examples after the undead bit, but if you modify the basic rules that I mentioned there, it should be able to explain everything.
Hmm.. maybe I should add about 10 pages of examples to fatten that thing up .
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
That's great, Muz!
I was actually thinking about something similar myself, and my theory would be something like the forces of nature would be some kind of illusion. In actuall case the universe is controlled by actions and consequenses. When performing an action, one or more consequenses will follow, which will lead to more actions etc.
Example:
Action: Dropping a pen
Consequense: It falls to the ground
But every consequense isn't allways directly dependant to the action causing it. Those consequenses is known as the actions "dim" function, or magic.
Example:
Action: Dropping a pen while holding your breathe in a pentagram painted in green, whit and purple when the planets is in a certain position relative to each others.
Consequense: The pen will stay in the air for five minutes, then it will explode.
Of course, sometimes you can perform a spell without your knowledge, but in that case the dim function is often lightyears away. Maybe by uttering this sentence loud, you turn an asteroid in andromeda into a baloon.
In the story I might use this element in, this is a a great leap towards discovering the meaning of life (if there is one) since we can control our own actions. If the universe was just filled with rocks and dust, they would have no choice but to obey the forces of nature, and maybe perform a random spell now and then.
But your theory is much better. More detailed and make much more sense.